[TWG Note: Below is a letter, written by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association to the Fish and Wildlife “Protection” agency. I think you’ll find it most interesting, particularly if you live in Montana, Washington, Idaho and Oregon. Please see my personal note below the letter, and please help me in sending Mr. Marbut a heartfelt THANKS for his efforts on behalf of our gun rights, wildlife, hunters and for all Americans who feel that Federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries.]

For two decades, FWP has come to focus on wildlife and biology, when it should have been focused on fish and game. A significant part of this picture has been FWP’s shocking tolerance and support for large predators. FWP’s total, willing, even eager cooperation with large predator enhancement has long been predicted to result in an economic crash for the agency, when the word unavoidably spreads that there is no game left to hunt so there is no reason to buy a license.

FWP leaders have for too long leaned on the scales of policy by making excuses for the devastation wrought to game herds by large predators, fudging game counts and census numbers, and blaming any population declines that could not be covered up on climate change, sunspots, or aliens – anything but the truth. This coverup culture has been fostered by senior staff, always near retirement, who knew they’d be gone and not in the hot seat when the crisis actually arrived.

If the overall FWP attitude had not been so Hell-bent on “ecosystem management,” “biological diversity,” “natural balance” and other similar catchy but terminal “green” ideas destined to end hunting, FWP managers could have projected the current crisis years ago. I guess nobody at FWP noticed or cared several years ago when the editor of the NRA’s American Hunter magazine wrote a feature article about his fruitless elk hunting trip to southwest Montana, a trip where the only tracks he saw were wolf tracks. Nobody at FWP noticed or cared about the other thousands of warnings from Montana citizens. Worse, those warnings were ignored in a mad pursuit of a “green” agenda for FWP.

The stock mantra from FWP managers has been: We’re the professionals. We know best. The outcome concerned citizens project will never come to pass. The “evidence” of crashing game herds citizens cite is just “campfire stories” and is without merit because it doesn’t come from professional FWP biologists.

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, asserted that FWP-tolerated wolves were turning the Montana landscape into a “biological desert,” FWP dismissed such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself. As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won’t quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, “We’ve been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years. Now we need the general public to pay the bills.” FWP has so fouled its nest by inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will eventually have to go to the Legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won’t pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, general taxpayer money.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the Legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, MSSA and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say “Absolutely no way.” FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them.

What FWP needs is not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture. Until that happens, let FWP starve! It is not serving Montanans.

[TWG Note: Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has been diligently and tirelessly advocating for hunters, wildlife and for our Second and Tenth Amendment Rights not only here in Montana, but all over the country. We can Thank Him for the Firearms Freedom Act, among many, many successful legislative efforts and accomplishments on our behalf. Mr. Marbut is an amazing individual, and I hope you’ll join me in thanking him for his efforts and success.

I’ve personally witnessed Mr Marbut’s relentless work here at the Montana Legislature and in numerous opinion articles he’s written in his efforts to expose the truth about gun rights, wildlife and Tenth Amendment issues. He’s a SUPERSTAR in my book, and if you can help support his efforts, I’m certain a donation in any amount would be very much appreciated by him. If you’d like to become a member of The Montana Shooting Sports Association, you can show your support by purchasing a membership for a mere $25 You do not need to be a resident of Montana to join the Montana Shooting Sports Association. Donations and membership fees are used to help Gary’s efforts in advocating for our rights not just here in Montana, but all across America.

[TWG NOTE: OH, THIS IS RICH. THE GUN-GRABBING FASCISTS OVER AT CEASEFIRE ARE UP TO NO GOOD…… AGAIN. WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE HAND OVER THEIR GUNS CONSIDERING WHERE THSI COUNTRY IS HEADED? FOOLS. “POLITICAL”? I THINK NOT. OUR SECOND AMENDMENT IS A HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. WE WILL NOT RETREAT AND WE WILL NOT SURRENDER TO THIS NONSENSE. BET ON THAT.]

There were, if one reads accounts in the Portland Oregonian and Portland Tribune, some surprising turns at the weekend gun turn-in that may raise some eyebrows.

As I was reviewing some history on the Montana Sheriff’s First (SB 114) legislation, passed in both house and senate and vetoed by Governor Schweitzer, I stumbled across this very interesting and informative article written by our Friend Elias Alias in January 2011.

It appears we have a LOT of courtesy flushing to do here in the Great State of Montana. I think you’ll find this article very interesting and very well written. I suggest you investigate these issues in your State so that We, The People know exactly who we’ve got leading our States (our Liberty, our Freedom and our gun rights) straight down the crapper.

Why are Montana Sheriffs Associating with Communists and Gun Grabbers?

Posted on January 28, 2011

by Elias Alias, Montana Oath Keepers, USMC Vietnam veteran

Scenario SB 114

If the mayor is under attackFor gaming behind your back,Look-out Jack, better step back -Duck the flak, but stay on track.

Scenario: Deception distorts perception in the debate on SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill:

The people of Montana are grateful to Senator Shockley for reminding the people that Montana’s legislators are primarily Montanans and only secondarily serve as occasional legislators. They do not have to specialize in American history or in Constitutional studies.

We are now told that because the North won the Civil War, the conclusion we all should draw from that is that Federal law trumps State law, “like it or not.” Somehow Lincoln managed to rewrite the Tenth Amendment by winning a war – or did he? Let us make a scenario.

In our scenario, an amateur student of history who has given countless hours over many years to study the Constitution and the contexts of the era in which it was written, shows up at a committee hearing for a particular bill to speak for a bill, and finds to his dismay that the citizen legislators, some of whom have not bothered to learn the important lessons of history, are enmeshed in a tightly-orchestrated schedule and cannot grant one enough time to pack even the most condensed quintessence of ten years’ worth of study into a two-minute presentation before the committee.

Perhaps that is simply a blow delivered by bureaucracy’s inherent constructs, the infrastructure of organized governance. All can see that it is impersonal, that it is just how busy sessions work.

But our scenario grows darker when we recall the recent hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, January 21, 2011. The bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee was Senate Bill-114, commonly referred to as the “Sheriffs First” bill. The public was invited to appear before the Committee and speak for or against the Sheriffs First bill. A number of Montanans drove to Helena to stand before the microphone and plead for passage of this important bill.

However, the citizens who spoke for the bill were opposed by a battery of public employees who showed up to speak against the bill. Interesting, that. As reported, all who spoke against the bill were public servants, while the people from the private sector were in favor of the bill. There was that clear delineation – public servant vs the public. In this scenario, the public servants are convinced that they know what is best for the public, and shall wield the public power of office to ensure that the public gets only the laws which public servants deem appropriate. That begs the question, “Who is serving who?”

The citizens who support the bill, including attorneys, represent the sector of Montana society which encourages study into Constitutional issues, constitutional philosophy, study into contexts, study into history, and Supreme Court precedent. These citizens represent the aware and conscientious patriots within Montana who do as the founders insist all citizens should do – which is to be ever vigilant in watching over the manner in which government administers itself upon the governed.

Opposing the citizens were “associations” or lobbies for ‘special interests’. Of the several opponents of the bill present at the hearing, one in particular is handy for this extended scenario. We shall try to be elegant as we review some things, but we must now name a lobby which opposed the Sheriffs Bill. Of all things, it was the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (MSPOA). The spokesperson for MSPOA was Helena Mayor Jim Smith, a man with considerable connections at the core of governance.

He is the mayor of the State Capitol, after all. So let’s take a look at him from the city’s website:

“ In 1978 he began working on public policy issues, with the Montana Seniors Citizens Association and the Rocky Mountain Development Council. In 1983 Jim began working as a Lobbyist at the Montana Legislature. He has lobbied every Session since, working for a variety of human service, health care, law enforcement and local government associations and organizations. In 1994 Jim became a co-owner of Smith and McGowan, Inc., a lobbying, management and government relations firm located in downtown Helena. The firm’s clients include: the Montana Council of Community Mental Health Centers, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, the Montana County Attorneys Association, the American Cancer Society, and others.”

– end quote –

So that is part of our scenario – the gentleman is a well-connected lobbyist. A professional lobbyist. He advocates professionally for organizations, both public and private. He’s got position, and personality.

Speaking of personality traits, there is this tidbit, published on December 17, 2009 by the Missoula Independent.

[Bob] McKelvey and [“Mike” Meyer] Chessin founded Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence (MU-SGV) years ago to combat what they saw as a serious problem in the state. Late this summer, they finally reached out and approached state Reps. Dick Barrett and Ron Erickson, both of Missoula, about helping the group. In November, Helena Mayor Jim Smith joined MU-SGV’s steering committee.

“I think it’s a voice that needs to be heard in the debate here in Montana over gun rights,” says Smith, who has lobbied against concealed weapons carry for 15 years. “I don’t think there’s another grassroots organization or a group of ordinary citizens who are committed to the end of gun violence and the maintenance of a civil society.”

The group faces a number of tasks for 2010, most immediate of which is agreeing what issue to use as a rallying point. McKelvey says he has growing concerns over the rising number of open carriers in the Bitterroot—an issue highlighted by recent Celebrating Conservatism meetings that feature numerous attendees with firearms. But Barrett says putting open carry practices in the group’s crosshairs could galvanize Second Amendment proponents.

– end quoted passages from the Missoula Independent –

Our scenario continues to develop. We have a ‘lobbying personality’ which is running a city in Montana and providing its talents to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association, and lo and behold, this lobbying personality, presently dwelling like a clouded dream in the head of the Mayor of Helena, has taken a seat on the steering committee for a gun control group run in part by a fellow traveler named “Mike” Meyer Chessin.

Montanans who enjoy traditional gun culture in Montana are seen by Mr. Chessin to be “a serious problem”. He apparently has concerns about the Celebrating Conservatism movement in the Bitterroot, who lawfully carry their guns openly, but I’m sure he doesn’t think the Maiden of Montana Liberty, Ms Mona Docteur, would pop a cap on him. Surely he is not paranoid about his vision of a gun-free Montana, a somewhat delusional vision which he entitles “…the maintenance of a civil society”.

But what can we ask about Mr. Chessin, Mayor Smith’s partner at the Montanans United To Stop Gun Violence organization?

May we ask if he once was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley?

May we ask if, owing to alleged communist affiliations, Mr. Chessin fled UCB during the McCarthy era at a time when communists were being expunged from public offices?

May we also ask whether at that same time the University of Montana was having accreditation problems for not having sufficient numbers of ‘accredited’ professors?

And may we further ask whether the University of Montana picked up a handful of trans-locating communist professors, (some of whom were fleeing their offices under light of public scrutiny), at a discount price, including Botany professor Chessin?

Finally, may we ask whether students who attended U of M during that time readily admit that Chessin kept posters of Stalin and Lenin on his office walls at the U of M?

We are just asking questions of course, but we can be sure that Chessin does not approve of Montana’s gun culture, its traditions, and its importance in today’s world.

Question – aren’t communists always against allowing a population to keep and bear arms? And isn’t the keeping and bearing of arms one of our denoted “inalienable rights”, which public officials are sworn to protect on our behalf?

Another question. Why would the University of Montana take down the Internet page which could have revealed the reasons we have so many questions today regarding Chessin?

The information on faculty-member Chessin, now removed from the www, used to be at this link – it’s a dead link now:

The fearless professional lobbyist who is also the Mayor of Helena, Montana, sits on the steering committee for an anti-gun group with an alleged – but unproven – communist sympathizer at the same time he is providing his services to the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorneys Association.

On their behalf, in their names, he has stood before the Montana Senate’s Judiciary Committee to oppose a bill which would affirm the (Montana) constitutional Sheriff’s authority as the highest law enforcement officer in his County. This he did while the unanimous voices of the citizens were entered into the record requesting that the Committee move the bill forward.

The citizens’ voices were confronted by Mr. Smith’s retort that:

“The sheriffs of Montana really do not want to be pawns in anyone else’s political games.”

Is it not the quintessence of gall for a man to seek to install against the wishes of the people

“…the maintenance of a civil society”,

which is a politicization in itself, by accusing freedom-loving Montanans of playing political games?

Shouldn’t Smith admit that the ‘Montanans United to Stop Gun Violence’ organization is indeed “politicizing” an issue of our County Sheriffs’ authority?

Isn’t MU-SGV a self-declared political organization with a self-declared mission to infringe upon Montanans’ rights to keep and bear arms – perhaps with the instigation of avowed communists?

Gary Marbut, of Montana Shooting Sports Association wrote this Sheriffs First bill. Gary is the same author who gave us the successful Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009. Gary Marbut represents the voice of the Montana citizenry. Gary Marbut is not a lobbyist for any government office or agency. Gary Marbut defends the Montana Constitution on behalf of a free people.

Yet the professional lobbyist for MSPOA and MCAA is representing an anti-gun-rights agenda at the same time he purports to lobby for our Sheriffs and Peace Officers.

Who is politicizing what here?

Are the Sheriffs Smith purports to represent actually as anti-gun as Smith, or is Smith using the Sheriffs as pawns in the Smith/Chessin anti-gun game?

Some may say that kind of question begs “standing”. Very well. Here is some standing –

We are asking questions about the propriety of lobbying, its place in our lives, where it fits into our world. What does a lobbyist do?

Lobbyists are “statists” who represent “interests” in efforts to shape, mold, and structure state authority in ways which benefit the “interests” who pay for such services.

What is a “statist”?

A statist is one who values and believes in the power of the state (as in, the government, on whatever level). Statists use the force of the state to animate their policy, which is derived from their personal perception of various systems available to them.

Communists, for example, are statists, as also are ‘collectivists’ and ‘Marxist socialists’ or ‘progressives’ harking back to Colonel Edward M. House and Woodrow Wilson.Neo-cons are also statists.

Communism, like Marxism or socialism or any other governmental “ism”, is based on the individual’s willingness to believe in the power of the state, and the use of that power to control or regulate others. That is a psychological element of a perception which elicits a personal response in harmony with one’s view of life on earth – one’s “perception”.

A lobbyist who is a collectivist, or one who is a statist, can be employed to shape public perception in ways which benefit one’s client’s interests. A lobbyist who chooses to represent a government arm, such as, say, the office of County Sheriff, but brings a statist perception to the table, may, if one is not exceedingly careful, awaken the very Sheriffs and Peace Officers upon whose good name said lobbyist rides.

Question – Do the Sheriffs and Peace Officers who are represented by this particular statist lobbyist know that he also works with an anti-gun organization?

Did Mr. Smith call the Sheriffs of Montana’s Counties to see how they felt about SB-114, the Sheriffs First bill?

Was the lobbying of the Mayor fortified by the spread of “official” views for each Sheriff to hold regarding this bill, before Mr. Smith purported to represent their personal views to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

We do know that at least two courageous Sheriffs have taken stands for the bill, much to their respective Counties’ glory. We wonder what the other Sheriffs may think. There is, after all, an Oath to the Constitution, and that Oath is, as President John Adams said long ago, “a sacred obligation”, which is why the Oath was written into the Constitution – to bind a public servant down to honorable service to the people who created the government, to ‘we the people’.

How many Sheriffs in Montana will stand on their Oath?

How many Montana Sheriffs recognize the need for a powerful buffer between Federal intrusion and the inalienable rights of the people?

How many Montana Sheriffs truly want a communist sympathizing anti-gun professional lobbyist representing them before the people’s legislature?

But there is more. Let us add some color to our scenario. This is a pdf.

We have to ask. Is Mayor Smith’s fair City of Helena involved in any way with the United Nations’ Agenda-21 and ICLEI? What do those terms mean? Here is an excerpt from that pdf:

The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.

ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at the ICLEI inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. In a nutshell, the plan (Agenda 21) calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.

It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.

This is now being implemented in several Montana cities, and Helena is one. We must wonder, who lobbied to get ICLEI operating in Helena?

Do the people of Helena know with cognizance that a United Nations radical and extreme land-control program has been installed in their city?

Could city planning be affected by anti-gun-rights affiliations?

Isn’t that a part of what Smith’s partner sees as “…the maintenance of a civil society”?

To really understand what the United Nations’ Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and ICLEI are all about, read often at the best online source for the full picture – Michael Shaw’s remarkable site, Freedom Advocates: http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

So let us see. We have a lobbying Mayor representing the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the Montana County Attorney Association in opposition to the Sheriffs First bill, and he works at the same time with an anti-gun organization which is pondering getting rid of our right to openly carry our guns, and all the while he’s not embarrassed to make deals or cooperate with the United Nations, which seeks a higher authority over our U.S. Constitution.

And this guy claims to be representing our communities’ law enforcement? And our County Attorneys?

That’s quite a scenario.

Does Helena’s Mayor have some help from within those organizations?

Yes. He does. Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert took time from his busy schedule to speak against the bill at the Committee hearing, and spat a bit of his own vitriolic resentment that, in his misguided view of SB 114, the people’s elected Sheriff should have the power to interfere with his federal associations. Dr. Ed Berry has already quoted him, but just for the record, Mr. Lambert sees the bill as an infringement on his job.

Could that infringement in any way affect his friendly relationship with the federal agencies operating in his County?

Aren’t the in-state activities of Federal agencies/agents part of the object of this bill?

How would the Sheriff’s lawful duty to require all federal agents to obtain the Sheriff’s written permission prior to search, seizure, or arrest of any County citizen somehow threaten the Attorney’s job unless the Attorney has discrete liaison with federal offices?

Where in this Sheriffs First bill is any Sheriff instructed to manage the office of the County Attorney?

But wait – doesn’t that bring us back to the opening of this lengthy screed?

We began by talking about citizen legislators and we noted that Senator Shockley gave us pause with his statement regarding his conclusion about the Civil War. Senator Shockley mused that since the North won the war, that settled the question of Federal vs State sovereignty. States are under the authority of the Federal government, as he would say it. His gracenote was “Like it or not”.

But we may ask next, what about the Montana Firearms Freedom Act of 2009?

It was passed into law, signed into law, and immediately the Federal ATF declared that Federal law trumps Montana law, sending letters to that effect to each FFL in the State.

Did not the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association oppose that bill also, as they are opposing the Sheriffs First bill this session? (Or was it just their lobbyist?)

But the real question to ask is whether the Federal denial of our lawfully-enacted Firearms Freedom Act of 2009 would be weakened by the passage of the Sheriffs First bill?

What about Montana’s medical marijuana law, which the Federal government also refuses to recognize?

How would the Sheriffs First bill affect the Feds’ insane push to over-ride Montana’s law?

Do the people of Montana have any sovereignty if their voted and legislated will is subject to Federal incursion?

And isn’t it Federal incursion when the Federal government threatens Montana with Federal powers to over-ride the written will and law of the Montana people?

And is not the Sheriffs First bill a threat to that kind of Federal mischief?

Dr. Ed Berry has alluded already to the Mack/Printz Supreme Court decision of 1997. The full story on that is available at Sheriff Mack’s website –

Enough can’t be said about that landmark decision. Icing on the cake with that decision is the fact that then-County Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, the distinguished patriot Sheriff Jay Printz, was Sheriff Mack’s partner in the suit against Clinton’s Brady bill. Two Sheriffs, one from Arizona and one from Montana, sued the Federal government and won, and part of the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, goes like this:

“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of ‘dual sovereignty’… Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained ‘a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,’…

“Residual State sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people….

“The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other… The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.” – Justice Scalia

Senator Shockley, it can’t get any more clear than that. The Federal government did not create the States, and it does not give us any “rights” – the Civil War did nothing to damage the Tenth Amendment. The Federal government was created by the States to protect individual rights which are clearly stated to be unalienable rights. That means, no government can place a lien on our God-given/Natural rights.

The people of Montana want the Sheriffs First bill passed into law. Support the people and the State of Montana as we resist Federal incursion and Federal intrusion. Acknowledge the citizens’ rightful seat of legitimacy and authority in this Republic of law. The document begins with, is of, by, and for, “we the people”.

Choose the people over the special interests, over the socialists, over the communists, over the professional lobbyists. Choose the law as written, not a lobbyist’s interpretation of law. The perception of the opponents of this bill has been furnished to them by Federal programming and a dependency on Federal funding. It is only natural that they, joined at the waist with Federal programs, would oppose this move by the people to reclaim Montana sovereignty.

Good Senators, please hold dear Montana’s historic culture of freedom, and celebrate Montana’s compliance with the Constitution for the united States of America. Please pass SB-114.

The Purse And The Sword – by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., holder of four degrees from Harvard. This is the definitive advanced Constitutional course, over eight viewing hours’ worth, on sound money and the lawful Militia of the several States:

Imagine your telephone ringing in the middle of the night. The caller informs you that he is a police officer. He wants to “get you the help and appropriate resources you need.” But wait, you have not asked for any help, don’t need any help, and certainly don’t want this “help” in the middle of the night.But this offer of “help” and “appropriate resources” is an offer you can’t refuse. You see, your home is surrounded by SWAT teams from multiple jurisdictions. There are men in helmets with machine guns everywhere. Snipers are aiming at your home. You are told to come outside. You are promised you won’t be arrested, handcuffed or removed from your property. You are told your possessions will not be confiscated. The friendly paramilitary troops outside your house just want to chat with you.

Any rational person would recognize the danger in refusing the orders of dozens of heavily armed cops.

You leave your home and immediately you are handcuffed at gunpoint and taken to a mental hospital for a “psychological evaluation.” The police enter your home without a warrant, without permission, without probable cause and confiscate your firearms.

You have NOT been “arrested” so you have no right to an attorney. You have no right to remain silent. You are subjected to a “hold.” You can be held for up to 180 days. You can be medicated against your will. Your crime? The lawful and state-approved purchase of firearms.

None of this is fiction or speculation. It happened to an Oregonian on March 8th. This is the new face of “gun control” in the age of Obama. Buy a gun, go to a mental hospital.

Like this:

Here’s a post from the Gun Rights Examiner this morning. Written by Dave Codrea . Source link at bottom.

Among the state grassroots groups I follow is Oregon Firearms Federation, and regular readers know I’ve been reporting on their alerts about a bill they say is a setback: SB 1008, a bill to reverse the gains made in the 2009 session was sent back to committee last week after it became clear no one understood it.

Now, a slimmed down version has been introduced. SB 1064 has been introduced and referred to the Senate Rules Committee. The bill reverses SB 603, which passed in 2009. 603 corrected an error in Oregon law that said a person with a felony conviction could petition the courts to have his rights restored to purchase a firearm. But he was still prohibited from owning it!

The new bill was rammed through committee with only one hour’s notice. That appears to have been deliberate, meaning in order to discourage public input. And while Oregon Firearms Federation testified in opposition, and also delivered opposition testimony on behalf of NRA, one gun group that supported the measure carried the day: Oregon Gun Owners.

Who? Long time members may recall that “Oregon Gun Owners” was the group that drafted legislation to outlaw private transfers of firearms at gun shows and in some cases your own home. When OFF defeated that bill in 1999, “Oregon Gun Owners” attempted to put a measure on the ballot to outlaw private firearms transfers at gun shows. That failed as well, but a competing measure sponsored by Ginny Burdick passed.

“Oregon Gun Owners” once attempted to hijack OFF’s domain names until threatened with legal action. We can only speculate as to why OGO has come out of the woodwork to promote another anti-gun bill. They played NO part in the bill they are seeking to overturn and had no position on the basic issue of whether Oregon gun laws should make any sense.

What they HAVE done is give cover to the anti-gun politicians who can now say that a “gun group” supports overturning the progress we made with your help last year. Those are pretty definitive and damning charges.

I went searching for Oregon Gun Owners because I haven’t dealt with them, and found their website which claims: Oregon Gun Owners has been protecting firearms rights in Oregon for over 34 years. Our philosophy is simple and clearly defined. Our goal is the preservation of our right as a free people to own and use firearms for legitimate purposes including self defense, collecting, target shooting and hunting. In accordance with that right, we emphasize and promote responsible and safe ownership of all firearms. Through our Education Foundation, we support and fund programs designed to promote gun safety.

Sounds good. But then I found this:

The organization that calls itself Oregon Gun Owners has contributed to the political campaigns and political action committees of many ANTI-GUN politicians. Would you like to see the proof for yourself? Well, read on for it’s all right here in black and white. That certainly deserves further scrutiny.

Three questions come to mind: Are the criticisms true? What is OGO’s rationale for supporting SB 1064? Why would Oregon politicians defer to them when NRA and OFF oppose a bill? I’ll be happy to give Oregon Gun Owners space in a future column to explain their position on the bill, and to address anything I’ve presented here they may consider unfair, out of context or misrepresenting.

Ore. — A state court is considering whether sheriffs in Oregon can block public access to information about concealed handgun permits. The Oregon Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday in a dispute that arose after news organizations and others sought to obtain lists of people with those permits as part of the public record. Since then, sheriffs around Oregon have moved to keep that information private. The sheriffs say public disclosure would jeopardize the personal safety of permit holders. Open government advocates say Oregonians should have the right to check to see who is getting concealed handgun permits from local sheriffs.

Nearly 110,000 Oregonians have gotten concealed handgun licenses by undergoing background checks and firearms training. A year ago, sheriffs around Oregon began sending letters to permit holders, asking whether they wanted their identities withheld if it is requested as an Oregon public record. Sheriffs say the response was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping that information closed. “People hold those permits for safety reasons. That’s information that they would not like to be released,” said Tillamook County Sheriff Todd Anderson, who is president of the Oregon State Sheriffs Association.

The case heard by the appeals court Friday stemmed from the Medford Mail Tribune’s request for a list of permit holders in 2007. Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters denied the request, saying that disclosure would compromise license holders’ personal security. A lower court ruled in favor of the newspaper. Winters appealed the ruling to the state Court of Appeals. In Friday’s court arguments, Timothy Jackle, a lawyer for the newspaper, said the public interest “strongly favors” keeping the permit information open. “The public has a right to monitor how sheriffs are making sure the permits are not being granted to people who are a danger to themselves or others,” Jackle said.

Benjamin Bloom, a lawyer representing the Jackson County sheriff, said people obtain the permits for personal safety reasons and don’t want to be subject to being stigmatized by having it publicly disclosed that they carry a concealed handgun. “They expect this information to be kept confidential,” Bloom told the court. The issue came up during the Oregon Legislature’s 2009 session. The House approved a bill that would have placed limits on public access to information about concealed handgun licenses, but the bill died in the Senate.